1

To manifest its vision, the Guardianship Boardcommits to the following mission:

1. To support, protect and advocate the bestinterests of mentally incapacitated adults byempowering guardians to:

(a) facilitate the management of their finances;

(b) ensure that their needs for services andmedical treatment are met;

(c) protect them against abuse, exploitation andneglect;

(d) enhance their quality of care.

2. To facilitate the resolution of disputes withrelatives and service providers, concerning thebest interests of mentally incapacitated adults.

3. To keep the guardianship legislation undercontinuous review so that it promotes the bestinterests of mentally incapacitated adults.

MISSION

VALUE

�

��

VISION

The Guardianship Board commits to thefollowing values:

Protection / Compassion / FairnessIndependence / Respect / Accessibility

�The vision of the Guardianship Board is to

promote the welfare, interests and protection ofmen ta l l y i ncapac i ta ted adu l t s t h roughguardianship.

!"#$%&'()*+!",-"./01

2345&6789:;<=&>?@?AB

�

3CDEFG'(9!"#$%HIDJKL

MNO

PQ 3CRST-"UVW./012345678

&XY?A9#Z!"8O

[\] ^_`a<=&bcd

[\\] e-<=fghi&jcUkld

[\\\] -"<=mnopTqrst@uvwxd

[\y] z{wx|}B

~Q ^_�����jcz����9�./012

345678&XY?A�����&��B

�Q ������!",&��9�:;./012

345678&XY?AB

!"#$%��KL&����O

-"  ¡¢  £¤  ¥¦  §¨  ©ª

��

�

2

CONTENTS

1. Message from the Chairperson ..................................................................... 4

2. The Report ........................................................................................................... 7• The Work .............................................................................................................. 8• Orders Made ...................................................................................................... 11• Sittings ............................................................................................................... 15• Analysis of reasons of applications ................................................................... 16• Format and Language of Orders and Reasons ................................................. 17• The Board and its Members .............................................................................. 18• Appeal ............................................................................................................... 19• Complaints ......................................................................................................... 22• Publicity and Public Education .......................................................................... 22

3. Board Members ................................................................................................ 23

4. The Secretariat ................................................................................................ 29• The new website ................................................................................................ 31• The new set of 13 leaflets .................................................................................. 32• Public Enquiries ................................................................................................. 33• The new medical report formats ........................................................................ 33• The imaging storage system and IT hardware enhancement ........................... 34• The new Board room facilities............................................................................ 34

5. Case summaries .............................................................................................. 35• 1st case - A well-off street sleeper ................................................................. 36• 2nd case - A fortune to inherit ......................................................................... 39• 3rd case - What a gift! .................................................................................... 42• 4th case - There is nothing wrong with my body weight ................................ 45• 5th case - How guardianship order help in improving budgeting skills ......... 47

This report is also available on the Board’s website at www.adultguardianship.org.hk.

2003-2006 Second Report !"#$%

3

!" #$%& QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ «

'" () QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ ¬­ ®¯ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ °

­ N,&±² QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ PP

­ ³´ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ P«

­ µ¶·¸&¹º QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ P»

­¼!",Ua½&¾¿UÀÁÂÃQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ P¬

­ #$%U#$%#$QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ P°

­ 0Ä QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ PÅ

­ ÆÄ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ ~~

­ ÇÈU£ÉÊË QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ ~~

*" +,-+, QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ ~�

." /01 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ ~Å­ ÌÍÎ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ �P

­ ÏÐÑÌ&ÒÓÔ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ �~

­ £ÕÖ×QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ ��

­ Ì&klØÙQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ ��

­ ÚÛÜÝÞßUàáâã{ä QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ �å

­ #$%%æçèÌéê QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ �å

2" 3456 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ �«­ ëìGGí î ïð&ñòóô� QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ �»

­ ëõGGí î b�öH QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ �Å

­ ëÐGGí î ÷øù¼ú QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ å~

­ ëûGGí î ü&ý¨1��QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ å«

­ ëþGGí î !",ÿ!"#ab45 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ å¬

$ØÙ%&0'(#$%ÍÎwww.adultguardianship.org.hkB

=��

4

This is the second report of the Guardianship Board for the years 2003-2006.

The Guardianship Board of Hong Kong was set up in February 1999 under Part IVB of theMental Health Ordinance, Chapter 136, Laws of Hong Kong. It is a quasi-judicial tribunaldetermining applications for guardianship for adults who are mentally incapacitated persons.The Board is comprised of currently 56 board members divided into three panels. They arerespectively (i) the lawyer members who are solicitors and barristers, (ii) the professional memberswho are doctors, social workers, nurse specialist, occupational therapist and clinical psychologistsand (iii) the community members who are members of the public who have the experience oftaking care of mentally incapacitated persons. Each application for appointment of a guardian isheard by a panel consisted of at least one member from each panel, with the lawyer membersitting as the chairman of the hearing. Hearings are conducted in an informal atmosphere with aclear goal to protect and promote the interests of welfare of the concerned person. The result ofan application is announced immediately after a hearing. A written order and reasons for orderare obliged by law to be delivered within seven days thereafter. The aim of setting up theguardianship regime is to provide an effective and efficient system to appoint a guardian for theconcerned person in need. The guardian so appointed will make decisions for the concernedperson in respect of his or her welfare, residence, daily care, medical treatment and finance. Thepractice and procedure of the guardianship has been built up over time and the use of guardianshipis getting wide support from all sectors of the society. It is also accepted as a form of readymeans with which the welfare of the vulnerable people with cognitive deficits is protected andpromoted, particularly as against all kinds of abuses. The guardianship system in Hong Kongremains today as the first of its kind in South-East Asia and East Asia. However, unlike otherjurisdictions, the Guardianship Board of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, albeit itsindependent status, does not have an unlimited financial jurisdiction. Currently, the monthlymaximum financial limit is $10,000.

On behalf of the Board, I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the Health, Welfareand Food Bureau, Social Welfare Department and Hospital Authority for their past tremendouscontribution without which the guardianship system would not have been successful. On behalfof myself and my team, I extend my equal gratitude to all the previous and existing members ofBoard whose dedicated efforts have been pivotal to the success of our mission to promote andprotect the interests of welfare of our subject persons.

Charles CHIU Chung-yeeChairperson of Guardianship Board

Year 2006

the Chairperson

2003-2006 Second Report !"#$%

Message from1.

5

F)!"#$%3õ))Ð7*õ))+7,&®¯h-ê&ØÙB

!"#$%)./01��ëP�»23./456�789:;(ì<<<7õ=�6¦&B

#$%)ìG±>�?@AB93./012345&678¯C!",B#$%ED�ÐEF

þÏ+G#$9<=¹3HI6$JKHIU÷HIdLM6$9JKk�TN®TLO"PT

QMRlIUST�aUVdUNW6$9<=)X�wx./0123458P�Y&£Õ8

PBZ[#Z!"8&µ¶Gí%½X\Ð]¹�^¡E²&#$?a9�HI6$_`abc

���³´B³´d^ef&ghK;29�ij-kU:;lm8&XY?A&·n3opB

µ¶qr%(³´s¦tuv9�wx!",UN,�a½%./��d³´syz{|CB6

¦!"},&~&9)��ìG��U���&},93�i`&lm8#Z!"89n#Z&

!"8��3lm8d>?T�ôT��wxTklUbc�m�0¯C��B!",&µ¶@

�¯9�+�7���YU^��ü�#s9&e¦C��&�nU��9�!",&MÁ%�

AfgN%0^¡�x8P&÷5R�@�¡B!",è&nÈ���3ì�4-kU:;��

45��8PXY?A&����9��) ¡¢�&opB01&!"},*£¤¥)¦§¨

U¦¨©&ª«B01¬²2­W&!"#$%)¥¦�¯9®��<¯V&!"},�h^

¡9¸3#$%&bc°5)±g²}&9EDZ=bc0²3ì³´B

Xs9üfµ¶#$%·�¸¹º�>?U»ù¼TN%>?½Uk¾`a¼+¿3#$%

&®¯h¯C&À÷ÁÂ9:M!"},f�6Ãd$1ÇÄB$8¡Dfµ¶�ÅU#$%Æ

wÇÈý¡mÉÊZUEZ&È;#$%#$¶i·�¹Ë9¸<=Ì�1Í&Î59,#$%

f�6ÃijÏ:;U-klm8?AÐ&MNB

789:;!"#$%cÑ

õ))+7

����1.

6

7

�=�The Report

2.

8

The Work��

!"#$%ìÿÒÓÔ��0L�&·nU

ÕnÖ×ØÙÁ(¯C?Ú!",&µ¶UÛ�

09#$%%��Ôlm8&XY>?¯3X÷

Üz9�U�ÝØÞßìàÔlm8áâ!"9

)ãäåæ <&XY?AB#$%¬²Ò�ØÇ

aU�ç��ÏXs©�Ð&·n9èé��<�

Á&©�94Ôlm8�½¯C��&²}ê*

XëBdFì09#$%%Ò�ííØÖ�Z[

Gí)ã&Ýdî�ïÁð¤¿ñòî©�9�

mó!",&ôõU²}Bö÷9_øù&)9

!"��&¬ú)^ef(û¿9F¡ìüý\

þÿ>�A}&!É)ì"÷#ÇB¡$Ø9#

$%&��Xê�<¬ú9ÿ!"��&?´%

&&'`(9¤_)*£+?´&·n9,��

-.)^±'/�n&/09F�1_!"},

�¯23BXs9^f^z&)9Z[4Ú!"

,&Gí95_6��(!",7²89Ü9�

:Ä;Û���B

The Guardianship Board has consistently

applied the principles and criteria as set out in

the statute in determining guardianship

applications and reviews. Amongst all these, the

Board always puts the interests of welfare of the

subject person as the paramount concern and it

considers carefully whether it is in the interests

of the subject person to receive him into

guardianship. The Board is mindful to particularly

observe the principle of the last resort in order

that the restriction on the freedom of decision

making of the subject concerned can be

minimized. In this regard, the Board scrupulously

examine in each case whether an informal means

has already existed or could be put in place so

that a guardianship order, which is by nature

intrusive and restrictive, can be dispensed with.

Emphasis of the Board is made particularly to

the characteristic of informality of guardianship

proceedings which is of great advantages to the

general members of the public who are,

generally, strangers to the legal system. Equally,

other characteristics like the inquisitorial nature

of the guardianship proceedings, the dispensing

with the observation of rules of evidence and the

need to follow the rule of natural justice are all

contributing to the fluidity of the running of the

guardianship regime. Lastly, there is one special

feature worthy of mentioning, that is, each

guardianship order must be automatically

reviewed before its expiration.

2003-2006 Second Report !"#$%

9

These three years (February 2003 - January

2006) saw a pattern of consistent and steady

caseloads, averaged each year as below:

(FÐ7[õ))Ð7õ=*õ))+7ì=]

&Gí<~)+=U>�&9�Z7&+=<ÿ

K?

The Work &'

Normal Guardianship Applications

�� !"#$

Type 2003(from Feb) 2004 2005 2006(Jan) No. of case (average per year)<= ())*+,(-./ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++())0,1-/ 2345+,67894/

:;<=>+?@@ABC?DBEF=1GH (G) (IJ (H (IIK*LMN

O<?;BFP=+EQ+Q;<=>+?@@ABC?DBEF=1JJ (R( ((* G (*)K0LMNST

O<?;BFP=+EQ+;<UB<V+?@@ABC?DBEF=1J* (1* (R0 (J (**K*WXST

O<?;BFP=+EQ+<Y<;P<FCZ+?@@ABC?DBEF=1I G * ) G[\MNST

O<?;BFP=+QE;+]B;<CDBEF=) 1 ) ) )K*^_ST

10

The Report $%

Hearings for Normal Guardianship Applications

�� !"#$

Hearings for Review of Guardianship Orders

�� !

11

Orders Made����

Type of Orders �� !"

(FÐ789D9#$%@AzCBC!"

,U4r¡ËRl°5&µ¶Gí�.DKE&

FGBFý�4¶HE2!"},&ÇÈ&Il

6Ã9�£Õ&J3KL.M!",&Á�9F

NO6r9PQ#$%�7RS�UÎ5^TØ

ÇÈhjB

Towards the end of these three years, a

decreasing trend is noted regarding applications

for medical consent powers and emergency

guardianship (EGO) applications. Likely, these

are indicators that the guardianship system is

wel l promoted local ly and the uses of

guardianship are more clearly understood by the

community. These are the fruits borne out of the

persistent efforts of the Board to devote

resources to publicity programs.

The Report $%

12

Applications filed asking for the power of consent to treatment

�� !"#$%&'()*+,-.

Emergency Guardianship Order (EGO) Applications

�� !"#$

The Report $%

13

¡D9½(018UVW9d#$%ág&

!",µ¶%9��lm8)+ÏXî�08P

YCZ¹�[Ï�09�.DØ9\÷;ÑzC

µ¶&c`·¸�bc���]þ�^90_&

=)FÐ7{.D�ìÖ&FGB�`(ëõa

bc÷dsC�&efgh9qåKìµ&e�

&ëC��9,8U&qBx¡i÷&"j9!

",&i(dkRÏ75%�lhmB

>?@AB��n�Gí&FGo7p(+ÏXî�0q9

~rr�7* ~rr«7sJoìüUBC!",q

n�Gíµ¶<tO~rr�7OP¬»[o¬«Q~uq

~rrå7O~�~[o¬¬Q»uq

~rr«7OPŬ[o¬»Qåuq

Also, due to the aging population of HongKong, over 80% of subject persons received intoguardianship are people over 60. The purposefor which an application was lodged waspredominantly financial in nature. This trend isconsistent and self-evident in these three years.In view of the demographic changes due to theaging of the post-war baby boomers, coupledwith the low birth rate of the ensuing generation,the need of guardianship is likely to growconsistently in the decade to come.

CDEFGHIJKHLMJHNOBTrend of cases on Elderly (Age above 60 yearsold) , Comparison of Years 2003-2005 (Normal& EGO)

No. of applications on elderly: 2003: 176 (75.2%)2004: 232 (77.6%)2005: 197 (76.4%)

Orders Made `abcd

Trend of cases on elderly (Age above 60 years old) in normal guardianship and EGOs

�� !"#$%&�� !"#$%&'(�� !"#$%&'

14

Type of Disability==�� !

PQ<=

oìüUBC!",qo~rr�7* ~rr«7sJq

ìü!",µ¶<tO ~rr�7O~�å[

~rrå7O~ÅÅ[

~rr«7O~«°[

The Report $%

RHIJKHLMJHNOFNSFRHITLHUHJV

(Normal & EGO) (Comparison of Years 2003-2005)

No. of Normal applications: 2003: 234

2004: 299

2005: 258

15

½(³´&i(hm9Zv³´hÇa&G

í[<½õ[{*û[B(ìwi(x�&D

79#$%cÑ%&yzc�ì{z&³´î(

Zv&³´%?aþ[Gí9�|}~�D�B

To cope with the increase of hearings, the

number of cases to be heard in each session

has increased from two to four. During

demanding period, the Chairperson had

attempted to sit for whole day or five cases per

session in order to shorten the waiting time.

Sittings�=�

The Report $%

16

The Board took a specific study on thereasons for applications for the years 2004 and2005. Resulting from such a study, it is shownthat the predominant need for application isrested with financial concerns.

#$%�¡õ))û7Uõ))þ7&µ¶

·¸¯C��B��qrDH9c`&µ¶·¸

)bc��B

Reasons for normal guardianship applications in 20042004�� !"#$%&'(

Reasons for normal guardianship applications in 2005

2005�� !"#$%&'(

Analysis of reasons of applications �� !

========��

The Report $%

17

½(01¬²2­W{c`8U)%¯89

��9#$%�3dÇa�wD9%_J��Á

%�B#$%cÑ(õ))Ð7þ=õÏy��

aÁ%�|CëìG!",UN,�a½B*

£9#$%÷/�ÐÏÐGZ¹s&!",UN

,�a½Á%���B¡D93hmÕe�UK

��9!",UN,�a½&;Ѿ¿&��W

U¨Ì{aB

As the population of Hong Kong Special

Administrative Region is pre-dominantly Chinese,

the Board is mindful to use more Chinese for

obvious and good reasons. As an initiative, the

Chairperson gave his first Order and Reasons

for Order in Chinese on Tuesday, 27 May 2003.

So far, around 33% of the Orders and Reasons

for Order of the Board are written in Chinese.

Also, to enhance precision and clarity, all formal

parts of Orders and Reasons for Order have been

re-designed.

===========�� !"#=======�� ============�� !"#

Format and Language of Orders and Reasons

The Report $%

18

Date EventWX YZ

1)+:<e;f?;Z+())* g?F<A+h+Y<Ye<;=i+Y<<DBFP"jjk7"-lm nopqrs

(1+:<e;f?;Z+())H ID>+tFFBU<;=?;Z+u>?;BFP+vE;w=>E@+CfY+xfFC><EF"jjy7"-"lzm {|7}~����r���

(R+�?Ff?;Z+())I tFFf?A+�<UB<V+�+�<V+�<Ye<;=i+�;B<QBFP"jj{7z-"l�m |7���Lpq�$r

1J+�?Ff?;Z+())0 u@;BFP+�<C<@DBEF+CfY+u>?;BFP"jj�7z-l�m �����r

#$%�3�XÌ&!"�´|��#$%

#$)ý¨`&Bh�9óC3Z=�´7÷9

#$%%3#$&�C�K&�´%æ?

The Board feels it important to keep its

members updated with the currency of

guardianship issues. Therefore, apart from

issuing “monthly bulletins”, the Board had

provided the followings information sessions to

its members:

The Boardand its Members =��

====�� !===========��

The Report $%

19

#$%�ì<<<7õ=6¦*£9�fA

�õ[Gí&��8PÉ���¾µ¶0ÄB

!" [4\]^_!``2a'bb*cdeffg>hijklmnopqrs

��P��V7���9æ�÷� î¨�¡

�B¨���½��PwxB<=�)o���

s� B¡'AB3��Pz�Vc_aU��

"ajc9AB$®|E��P�Dn¢¥£d

V%<z9¤¥�¦»ùU§jB¨�����

Pár�Ss¨U&z©ª9<«¨U%zr�

�P&�SsR¬æ&��;R9,)¨�­®

�R¬Vc_aU��"ajc&¯Ái<=�

°BN%>?½N®*+¡'AB&N®fAF

ãm¢B

³´D9¨�±C½(<&V8d²³´

�9h�<+=Zµ7��¶*з@��Pì

¸B¨�%H�rÁC��P&�Ss9,<�

3��P�<)ìV89^Ù¹;¹�&stB

¨��3��P^i`!"89¸3F%º�<

=&�¢B

!"#$%#ZN%>?½½n3��P&

!"89¤èé!"8»¼ñò��PgV8¾

´�B

Since the coming into being of the Board inFebruary, 1999, there were only two appealslodged with High Court.

!" \]^_F!``2a'bb*ctETKGFLVFuTvFw"FHOFxyJNLEKF'bb.s

Madam LO has dementia and lived with herelder nephew, Ah Hoi, who was brought up bythe subject. Both of them live on CSSA. Avoluntary agency was engaged to provide homehelp and day care services to the subject, butgradually it found out that Madam LO wassometimes left alone in her unit for a few dayswithout meal or proper clothing. Ah Hoipossessed the subject’s cash dispensing cardof her bank account into which her public securitymoney (CSSA) was paid. He withdrew her CSSAand used to pay for her necessary expenses.However, he failed to pay for the home help andday care expenses for a few months. This matterwas brought to the attention of the social workersof the Social Welfare Department by the agency.

At the hearing, Ah Hoi said that on average,he spent only 2 to 3 nights with the subject as hehad a family in Shenzhen, Mainland. He alsoadmitted using up the subject's CSSA, as hethought the subject and himself are of one familyand there should be no distinction as to whosemoney it was. He asserted that no guardian isneeded as this will cut off their affective bondageand tie as close relatives.

The Guardianship Board appointed theDirector of Social Welfare as the guardian whowill keep in view of the future accommodation ofMadam LO.

Appeal �

The Report $%

�

20

Ah Hoi appealed to the High Court in April2003. The appeal was heard in October 2004and was dismissed on the ground (inter alia) thatthe appellant raised no new grounds which wasnot considered by the Board during the hearingat the first instance.

'" \]^_F'*ba'bb2ctETKGFLVFuTvFw"FHOFwTOMTKVF'bb2s

The subject is 81-year-old with dementia. Heused to live with his wife and is taken care of byher. His 8 children had split up into two campswith the mother and the 3rd daughter of onecamp. The main question of this case is whether,given the care arrangement now in place and asprovided by the wife and the 3rd daughter, aguardian should be appointed for the subject.

The two camps of family members, thoughgenuinely concerned with the welfare of thesubject, were in bitter conflict with each other.The communication channel was virtuallydiminishing since March 2004 and came almostto a standstill sometime after the missing incidentof the subject on the 26 May 2004. The evidenceat the hearing had made it crystal clear that allhealth care and financial details of the subjectwere not disclosed by the wife’s side to the (son)applicant's side since in about March 2004. Thetwo sides had, for long, failed to communicateat all on the medical and welfare needs ofsubject; they dismissed each other with greatsuspicion. The wife opined that the applicant’sact of applying was purely aiming at deprivingher of her various rights, including right tomanage the finance and take care of the subject.The wife even accused the motive of theapplicant in applying as only one for materialinterests of the property of subject. The wife wasvery angry at the applicant’s side. The applicant’s

¨�(õ))Ð7û=É���¾zC0

ÄB½0Ä(õ))û7Ï=;?Un¾¿9¸

30Ä8d0ij´&D�9®4zCÌ&a½

U#$%k�Þß+&ÌÀìB

'" [4\]^_'*ba'bb2cdeffz>{ijklmnopqrs

lm8)ìG[ÏìX��V7���8

P9<ìÉ�ÁÔ¡�¤½æwxB<Ë�[]

Ô�¤¹3¶19�ÁÔ^¡ëÐG�f3�%

ì1B½Gí&c`��)dÁÔUëÐG�f

�Âlm8&E�wxU���÷9)ãi`ì

G!"8B

¶1&VÃ6$�ÝÄØ��lm8&>

?9,<=���]þÅÆB(õ))û7Ð

=9<=&Ç�ÈÉ%Ê9U(õ))û7þ=

Ë+�lm8&ÌÍmãs&�ÈÎÏCB(³

´7�9#$%KL�A÷/�õ))û7Ð=

;Ð9ÁÔ&ì1�È®�ɵ¶8[tfÔ]&ì

1Ñó��lm8&Òý¢ÓUbc�ÔB¶1

��nD�®�Õ�+��lm8dklU>?

0&i`9<=IÖ��ÝdÀ÷×�BÁÔ�

3fÔµ¶&~&)ØÙÚÔæ&��°5Û

Ü9JK`alm8&bcUwxlm8BÁÔ

Ý*±Þµ¶8&:A�)3Clm8ùM0&

The Report $%

21

side, on the other hand, believed that the wife’sattitude had a fundamental change after joininga Christian sect and was being manipulated bythe 3rd daughter. The wife could not explain howthe large sums of withdrawals from the subject'saccount were spent.

The acute conflict between them havecaused grave concern to the Board as obviouslythe confrontation of the close family membershas undoubtedly caused detriments to theinterests of the subject and his needs were under-served. The wife had even, at the verge offrustrations, closed one of her bank accounts intowhich one of the sons paid the children’s monthlycontribution towards the wages of the domesticmaid. The Board agreed wi th the re-commendation of the maker of the social enquiryreport that the Director of Social Welfare, beingan impartial and independent public officer,should be appointed without delay in order tosafeguard the welfare of the subject. Also, bythe intervention of the public guardian, with herprofessional mediating skills, the family conflictcould, as one would hope, be de-escalated andthe communicating channel re-built.

The Board has appointed the Director ofSocial Welfare as the guardian for one year.

Soon after the grant of Guardianship Order,the 3rd daughter and wife each filed a reviewapplication and wished the Board to dischargethe Order. After a review hearing, the Boarddismissed their respective review applications.

The 3rd daughter lodged an appeal whichwas adjourned sine die and was ordered not tobe restored without leave. The High Court furtherordered the Guardianship Order so made shallcontinue to have full effect.

Dß?ABÁÔ¡µ¶8&ì1ð��gBIà

Ø9µ¶8&ì1Iálm8&ÁÔ�«mõì

GÊâs��.D&ãj9U¶G7n&äå=

nëÐG�fhæçBÁÔ%1��èé$MÁ

lm8¨U{&�ê÷ëz©B

VÃ6$��&ì¨ÅÆ,#$%À�í

�9D¥Ø9VÃ6$&¡îï�%ð6lm8

>?0?A&�Ì9j,<&¢�i`1�4f

ÈxwxBÁÔÝ*(gñDòÔfÔ=Z=�

VóãÝ®�&ô2¨Uq0B#$%¡ËN%

õ(ùÖØÙ-ê8&öæ9¦t#Z£¤U¥

¦&£Q8$÷N%>?½½n3!"89��

F$��-klm8&>?B¡D9èé�ø©

!"8&ôõUæ&LMù�ù49��MV8

��&ÅÆê\U¨Ìö¦Ç�úûB

#$%#ZN%>?½½n3!"8937

ì7B

!",|Cs^°9ëÐG�fUÁÔ¹²

µ¶Û�!",Uèé#$%üýN,BÛ�³

´s9#$%¹²¾¿æ=&Û�µ¶B

ëÐG�fzC0Ä9,n���¾N,1

²7þsUK,ÿk�ª4f�ÃÚ!9^fö

"�0ĵ¶9¤�,!",ö"��B

Appeal ��

22

Complaints

#$%ìÉý\ág£Õ8Pî³´¢©&

ÆÄB(F7�9#$%�ágÐ#wxÆÄ9

½wÆÄ÷;Ñ� ¡��&³´qr9./#

$%&ÆÄA}±ï9FÚ8P�DÙÞßÉ�

��¾zC0ÄB�%ìG��¡³´#$$,

&ÆÄ9�#$%ùÖs'D½ÆĤ®�mD

./9#$%¤���ùÖqrÙ�ÆÄ8B

The Board used to receive very fewcomplaints from the public or parties ofguardianship proceedings. During this period,the Board received only three wr i t tencomplaints. Most of these complaints wereprimarily related to the result of the hearing andthe complainants were advised, in accordancewith the Board’s Complaint Guidelines, toconsider an appeal to the High Court. One ofthem related to the manner of the panelmembers conducting the hearing, which wasfound to be unsubstantiated. The complainantwas notified of the Board's finding in this regard.

#$%óÇa!",µ¶UÛ�÷9%j5

%�U&�£ÉÊË&~@ÇÈ��!"�'B

(FÐ7{9#$%^¢Ô��&�ع²()

(ØK*+U<È*+,-./=0U28�

ûTþ±à102�T34�2(^¡&w5

÷9¤¥dÐÏ[G67%U��%¯CL�¹

89l%F�Ð9õ:yÏyGLM8$U�ç

�;ÒE8$CÑB

Apart from processing applications andreviews, the Guardianship Board spared no lesseffort in perusing opportunities to participate andconduct public education programs andpromoting publicities relating to guardianship.During these three years, not only launchingposter programs with respectively the MassTransit Railway and the East Rail, attendingtelevision interview and putting up articles invarious publications, the Board also conducteda total of 38 presentations and seminars for whicha total of 3,277 professionals and various focusgroups attended.

�� ==�� !

Publicity and Public Education

The Report $%

��

23

3.Board Members

�� ��

24

2003-2006 Second Report !"#$%

Board Members�� ��

|}+,

����8��

��� ¡

�¢£ ¡

¤¥¦ ¡

§¨¨ ¡

Ms Josephine Antonetta PINTO

©ª«�8��

_TOEUFC

Mr Herman HUI Chung-shing, MH, JP

Mr Joseph KUN Kin-wai

Dr David KAN Kam-fai

Mr Robin Miles Bridge

Ms Winnie MAK Yan-yan

Ms Josephine Antonetta PINTO

Mr William TSUI Hing-chuen, JP

_TOEUF~

�EDHIJEKEGF^EGHyTUF_KTyJHJHNOEKI

Dr Derrick AU Kit-sing

Dr Dominic LAU Kwok-kwong

Dr Paul SHEA Tat-ming

Dr Josephine Grace WONG Wing-san

Dr CHUNG Wai-sau

Dr FAN Tak-wing

Dr Benjamin LAI Sau-shun

Dr Benjamin LAU Shun-tung

Dr LAW Wun-tong

Dr LEE Chi-chiu

Dr Winston LIM Woon-chu

Dr MIAO Yin-king

Dr PAN Pey-chyou

Dr Edwin YU Chi-shing

�}+,

����

¬­®¯°

±²³¯°

´µ¶¯°

·¸¹¯°

º»¼¯°

½¾¸¯°

¿ÀÁ¯°

±Á¯°

ÃÄů°

ÆÇȯ°

ÉÊ˯°

ÌÍί°

ÏÐѯ°

ÒÓÔ¯°

^EvLEKItH�FM�FJNF*!FwTOMTKVF'bb2FaF+,�X�effz>{i�h{W

25

_TOEUF~

]UHOHyTUF_IVytNUNDHIJI

Mrs LAU Yu Po-kwan, JPDr Patrick LEUNG W.L.Mrs Rachel POON MAK Sui-manDr Sandra TSANG Kit-man

�NyHTUF�NK�EKI

Ms Christina KAN Pui-harMs Teresa LEE Chui-wahMs Helen LO Tak-mingMs Rebecca WONG Sim-yimMs Anita WONG Yiu-mingMs YEOH Chak-sumMr Stephen CHAN Siu-yuenDr Ray CHOY Yuen-lingMs Emily FUNG Wai-yingMs Kimmy HO Wai-kuenMr Steven LO Kin-shingMs Violet NG Shun-shunMr Andy NG Wang-tsangMs Phyllis WONG Yee-seungMr Silva YEUNG Tak-wah, JP

�}+,���r��

±ÒÕÖ�8��

×ØÙÚ�

ϧÛÜÝ�

ÞßÜÚ�

�-���

�ÐàÝ�

ÆáâÝ�

þ¶Ý�

ãäåÝ�

ãæ¶Ý�

çèéÝ�

êëìí°

îïðÚ�

ñòóÝ�

ôõöÝ�

÷ø®í°

ùúúÝ�

ùûüí°

ãýþÝ�

ç¾â�8��

Board Members pqrpq

26

|}+,

����8��

��� ¡

�¢£ ¡

êÿ!�8��

©"# ¡

$Á% ¡

&¾' ¡

(õ) ¡

_TOEUFC

Mr Herman HUI Chung-shing, MH, JP

Mr Joseph KUN Kin-wai

Dr David KAN Kam-fai

Mr Walter CHAN Kar-lok, SBS, JP

Mr Norman CHUI Pak-ming

Mr SHAW Shun-fat

Mr Thomas KWAN Tak-hong

Ms Christina HUNG Wai-ching

^EvLEKItH�FIHOyEF!F�ELKMTKVF'bb2FJNF�KEIEOJFaF+,�Xjeffz>ei{W��

_TOEUF]

Mrs Eva CHIU

Ms Christine HO Suet-chun

Ms PUN Kun-lin

Mrs Annie YEOH WONG Wing-wo

Mr Joseph CHAN Kun-sun

Mr William CHANG Kwong-chi

Mrs Goretti CHEUK CHUNG Kwok-yee

Mrs CHUNG CHAN Yuk-yee

Mr CHUNG Chi-wai

Mrs Evelyn LAU CHAN Shuk-wah, MH

Mrs Julie LEE

Mrs Heidi NG SHAM Sook-yin

Mrs TSANG WONG Wai-kuen

Mrs Laura YEUNG YUEN Chi-kwan

Ms Georgina LI Suk-har (deceased)

�}+,

*+ò,Ý�

ô-.Ý�

Ï/0Ý�

çãØ1Ý�

ê2Lí°

345í°

6º²7Ý�

ºê89Ý�

º:;í°

±ê<âÝ�

Ʊ=>�8��

?@<A�

ÞãòöÝ�

çB:ÖÝ�

Æ<àÝ�CDEF

Board Members pqrpq

27

Board Members pqrpq

_TOEUF~

�EDHIJEKEGF^EGHyTUF_KTyJHJHNOEKI

Dr Derrick AU Kit-sing

Dr Dominic LAU Kwok-kwong

Dr Paul SHEA Tat-ming

Dr Josephine Grace WONG Wing-san

Dr Peter TSOI Ting-kwok, JP

Dr Edward LEUNG Man-fuk

Dr YIU Yuk-kwan

Dr Felix CHAN Hon-wai

Dr David DAI Lok-kwan

Dr LIN Wei

Dr LO Chun-wai

Dr Karen SHUM Hau-yan

Dr CHAN Wah-fat

Dr Rommel HUNG Chi-hong

Dr Henry KWOK Wai-ming

]UHOHyTUF_IVytNUNDHIJIDr Anita LEUNG CHONG Ngai-ngor

Mrs Peggy Roberta MIU LEE

Dr Amy FUNG Shuk-man

Dr WONG Chee-wing

�MKIEF��EyHTUHIJFc_IVytNDEKHTJKHysMr CHUI Sing-kwan

xyyM�TJHNOTUFJtEKT�HIJDr Eria LI Ping-ying

�}+,

����

¬­®¯°

±²³¯°

´µ¶¯°

·¸¹¯°

îG²�8��

×HI¯°

JKL¯°

êMN¯°

O!Ö¯°

É;¯°

PQN¯°

RS¨¯°

êâ%¯°

T:U¯°

V�¶¯°

���r��×W>XÚ�

YÆZ[Ý�

ñ<\Ú�

ã]^Ú�

�������� ©®_í°

¡¢£¤;Æ`,Ú�

28

_TOEUF¥Mrs Eva CHIU(membership up to 31 July 2005)

Ms Christine HO Suet-chun

Ms PUN Kun-lin

Mrs Annie YEOH WONG Wing-wo

Ms Sally HO Wing-fong

Mrs Sonja SHIH CHAN Seung-yan

Ms Betty CHU Wai-sum

Mrs Heidi TONG HUI Sim-kiu

Mrs Margaret KWONG CHEUNG Yuk-yee

Mrs Delana SHEK SO Kwan-ying

Mrs Almond WONG LEE Sze-mun

Mrs FURNISS LAU Mei-ying

Mr Stephen HO Kam-yu

�}+,*+ò,Ý�Cabc"jj{7�-klzmF

ô-.Ý�

Ï/0Ý�

çãØ1Ý�

ôØdÝ�

eêf¨Ý�

gòéÝ�

h�ij�

k387�

lmÖ,Ý�

ãÆn\Ý�

±oóÝ�

ôpqí°

_TOEUF~

�NyHTUF�NK�EKI

Ms Christina KAN Pui-har

Ms Teresa LEE Chui-wah

Ms Helen LO Tak-ming

Ms Rebecca WONG Sim-yim

Ms Anita WONG Yiu-ming

Ms YEOH Chak-sum

Ms Rita LAM Yu-kiu

Mr KWOK Lit-tung

Mr Timothy MA Kam-wah

Ms CHAN Pui-yi

Ms Connie TSANG Fook-yee

Mrs Teresa TSIEN WONG Bik-kwan

Mr Christopher SO Kwok-on

Mr CHING Chi-kong

�}+,

�-���

�ÐàÝ�

ÆáâÝ�

þ¶Ý�

ãäåÝ�

ãæ¶Ý�

çèéÝ�

rs¤Ý�

Vtuí°

v¢âí°

êÐ7Ý�

ÞIwÝ�

xã[_Ý�

m²yí°

z:{í°

Board Members pqrpq

29

�� The Secretariat

4.

30

The Secretariat

!"#$%&'()*+,-./0*12

304!"567304!"5&'89:!"

;67<0=>,?/0@ABCDDDEFG

HIJ=!"#?/0KLM304?NOP

Q*%;RSTUVW%XYZ[\]^_`a

P?bc=d304e,fgXhij5kXl

m;nNOo?pqrs*304?bc$tu

\]?=fvEw*!"#xy#7yz{|}

~�*12���~���bc*�����;

�p�����?z������*!"#}�

����~�:�?��; ¡¢�;z��~

�w£¤b�=|¥|¦?*$!"#§¨©ª

The Secretar ia t is headed by theChairperson and supported by four staff, namely,the Board Secretary, the Assistant BoardSecretary, the Personal Secretary of theChairperson and a Clerical Assistant. The staffbody remains in its present size since 1999. Thestaff of the Secretariat is extremely dedicated tothe mission of the Board and highly effectively incarrying out all tasks assigned to them duringthe years under report. The success of the Boardwould not be made possible without theresilience and commitment of such a dedicated,yet small, team. During these years, theSecretariat duly discharged its various rolesincluding daily administrative duties of theoffice and the multiple tasks in processing ofguardianship appl icat ions and rev iewhearings. The Secretariat also took up theduties of answering daily public enquires andimplementing various off ice renovat ion

!"#$%&'%()*+),+-.#%/$#*("$&+0)#%/+12'#/+),+3"'+4'5%'3#%$#3 6 !"#$%&"'()#$*+,#$%-./01((789:;<=>?@ABC 6 DEFGH

4'5%'3#%I+3)+3"'+0)#%/ 6 !)#2%("&#34!#2-(506%7./9:;?@ 6 JKLMN

O(($(3#*3+4'5%'3#%I+3)+3"'+0)#%/ 6 !7))#$&5%("7.(#8+9#:)-70'7PQ9:;?@ 6 RSTMN

U'%()*#V+4'5%'3#%I+3)+3"'+!"#$%&'%()* 6 !)#4./('#3;;#97<0)7=<=WXY?@ 6 Z[\MN

!V'%$5#V+O(($(3#*3 6 !7))#*,+#>75PQ]: 6 ^_MN

�=�=�

2003-2006 Second Report `abcd

31

The new website

«¬­­-I¬­­®E*!"#¯°±¯

C²^¤³´=³´±¯µ¶·NH¸?¹º*

N~�:�L;�m»,H¼½=!"#¾¿²

³´ÀÁ]Â<ÃS*§ÄÅÆ<ÃS?Ç<È

É*!"#§e,�Ê,�?ÀÁbc=304

?¤³´«¬­­®E-ËC�ÌÍÎÏH=

In 2004-2005, the Secretariat planned andworked towards building a new website of theBoard. The contents of the website are meant tobe user-friendly in order that the public can obtaintimely and concise information. Much attentionhas been devoted towards the Chinese versionof the website as well as retaining the originalmeaning of its English text, for purpose of whichit was deliberate to retain no outside translatorfor the job. The new website was launched on1 April 2005.

!?.5%#?@#ABBC########DEEFG *75)#HI ####J?K#?@#L7)75?")#MNOPO&%$V ef ghijkl likmn

o#I pf hkqirhm rirhn

s.*' tf mjimnq nilug

s.VI vf quihnk nirjg

O.w.(3 xf hhhinuj limjq

4'&3'yz'% {f hhqigkh liljq

|53)z'% }f ggiknh lilnk

~)�'yz'% }�f gjijjj rikuh

�'5'yz'% }af mninhk niqjm

!?.5%#?@#ABBQ########DEERGs#*.#%I �f ugiggq nimul

���

The Secretariat ?@A

projects. The work of the Secretariat would notbe completely described without also mentioningthe efforts it paid towards promoting the use andconcept of guardianship to the public and thefocus groups. Some of the major initiatives ofthe Secretariat are set out below.

L*ÐÑ�W©ÒÓÔ�ÕÖ;�×ØÙÚg?

ÛM¸ÜÝ���?HÞ;ßàá=!"#?ß

â&ºbcTUãä=

32

In order to bring the information of the Boardand the knowledge of guardianship up to dateand as another major publicity and publiceducation project, a new set of 13 leaflets, inbilingual versions, was launched in June 2005(1st-12th leaflets) and March 2006 (13th leaflet).

(N~�:�L;�m»,�304?¼½

;åæ~çèé;êë8ì?*!"#«¬­­

®EíËîïCIð¬ñÚòóôI¬­­íEõË

îïðõñÚòóôVW*çÜÑyðõñ^¤ÂÆ

<Ã?Úòó=

The new set of 13 leaflets �� !

===�� !

The Secretariat++?@A

:75'(

SK T-"#U?"<

AK 4VV'76&57?.#9"?6(W-"(#@?"#&#X-&"W7&.)%7V#T"W("

YK Z'?[#6%&"5#@?"#&#.?"=&'#/-&"W7&.)%7V#&VV'76&57?.

\K :%7)#X-7W(#%('V)#1?-#5?#@7''#?-5#5%(#&VV'76&57?.#@?"=@?"#/-&"W7&.)%7V

CK *(&"7./#9"?6())#@?"#X-&"W7&.)%7V

QK 4]]"(^7&5(W#X-7W(#@?"#9"7^&5(#X-&"W7&.

_K 4VV'76&57?.#9"?6(W-"(#@?"#`(^7([#?@#&#X-&"W7&.)%7VT"W("

aK 4VV'76&57?.#9"?6(W-"(#@?"#b7"(657?.)#?@#X-&"W7&.)%7V

cK Z'?[#6%&"5#@?"#,`X;J:#X-&"W7&.)%7V#*(&"7./

SBK ;=("/(.61#X-&"W7&.)%7V#T"W("#0#9"?5(657./#&]-)(W=(.5&''1#7.6&V&675&5(W#&W-'5)

SSK Z'?[#6%&"5#@?"#;=("/(.61#X-&"W7&.)%7V#4VV'76&57?.

SAK $?.)(.5#5?#!(W76&'#&.W#b(.5&'#:"(&5=(.5

SYK X-7W(#5?#W?65?")#d#W(.57)5)#0#$?.)(.5#5?#!(W76&'#&.Wb(.5&'#:"(&5=(.5#?@#=(.5&''1#7.6&V&675&5(W#V(")?.ef!+9gh#0#7.#5%(#6?.5(i5#?@#9&"5#+Lj#k#9&"5#+L$l#!(.5&'*(&'5%#T"W7.&.6(#e$&VK#SYQh

SK mnopq

AK rstuvowx

YK rstuvoywz

\K {|tuvrsz}~�

CK tuv��wx

QK ���tuO����

_K rs��tuvowx

aK rstu~�owx

cK ��tu��oywz

SBK ��tuv��u���o��������o�GO

SSK rs��tuvoywz

SAK ����� ¡¢£¤ 

SYK �¥d#¢�~�������������oO��� ¡¢£¤ ���¦§¨©ª«SYQ¬­«+Lj¡«+L$®

¯°

33

The Secretariat ?@A

For the dual purposes of improving thequality of medical evidence and eliminating therisks of non-compliance of statutory requirement,the Secretariat spared no less effort in continuallyrevising the formats of all types of medical reportpro-forma. The latest version was uploaded ontothe Board's website.

Rö÷øùúû?üý;ÒþÿQu!?"

#ºþ?$%ì&ä*!"#cÑ|'(Ò*¾

^_,�?øùTU)*|+\÷=,¤?ÃS

Ì�-·304³´=

8(&"##G± J?K#?@#(.²-7"7()##³´Pµ

nkkr gkj

nkkl mhg

nkkj qgr

The new medicalreport formats ��

===�� !

The number of public enquires throughtelephone calls are consistently high during thelast three years.

«./õE*~�:�æ !"#¢�? 

¡0ýC1Ä2«Y.=

Public Enquiries����

34

The new Board room facilities ====��

�� ======�� !

345678;9:;?^Ò<2;=�>

?*!"#]@¾4A�w?BC±D;0EF

GHI¦J=¿KHI$^BLM?=NHI|

O¾^_?����FG*§¦Jy4A�?P

HÞ@L*fQRPQ¬­­íE304?ÜÝ

¯°*ST&LU°;��«304?4A�w

V�CW�×ØÙÚg;XY4=

With the full support and extra funding fromthe Health, Welfare and Food Bureau, theSecretariat has successfully completed anupgrade of the audio-visual and digital soundrecording systems in the conference room. Thesystem is fully automated. It serves the dualpurposes of digitally recording the processes ofall hearings as well as enhancing the functionsof the conference room. This ties in well with thepublicity plan of 2006, as for that year the Boardwill attempt to pro-actively plan and launch itsworkshops and seminars at the Board’s ownconference room for various focus groups.

The Secretariat ?@A

(¦J Z±[*!"#«¬­­-EDË

Ì\]ª¹?<^±[*§Ì_FNH`abc

HIbc<d=

The imaging storage system and IT hardware enhancement

To gear for future IT expansion, theSecretariat has since September 2004 acquiredthe necessary equipment and started to storeall file documents by way of an imaging system.

= = = =�� !"#�� !"#$

35

5.�� !

Case Summaries

36

efg6e,hi.jkÍÎèé;lImn

(<o=fg6./?&ºbc(pqb:;r

b=âC1ÙsOtuv;./e,hi.jk

�wx�y6;78=âzn{|}0E=fg

6nâC1tu«~��;����=fCE

�*âe,�#?uª;](��¸=â|L�

�./âi�?��*12�~����?�

n5â��yâ%�?��5](��¸?Ç�

;tu¦�jk��â�����â¦�y6?

:8� ¼½=

Case Summaries

“Mr WONG did not receive any formaleducation and said to be illiterate. Mr WONGsaid he had mainly worked as a cleaning workerand causal worker in the past. He used to earna living on his own all along and he had notreceived any government financial assistance orwelfare services in the past. He alleged tobecome unemployed for a number of years. MrWONG claimed that he used to live alone in therented rooms in Yaumatei and Shamshuipodistricts. He had no fixed abode and hadbecome a street sleeper for about a year. Hewas unable to tel l which companies ororganizations he had worked for in the past, hisprevious addresses, why he became a streetsleeper or any persons that had knowledge abouthis background or could provide assistance tohim.

�=�=�=�1st case �O+�'VV�),,+(3%''3+(V''&'%

o%�+�|~-i+qm+(.,,'%$*w+,%)y+/'y'*3$#i+�#(+(3#I$*w+$*+#+5)*�#V'(5'*5'+")(&$3#V+#3+3"'

3$y'+),+3"'+w.#%/$#*("$&+#&&V$5#3$)*+$*+o#%5"+nkkj�++4)5$#V+'*�.$%I+%'&)%3+%'�'#V'/+3"#36

�� !=�+������������t}v��������Y���a��p��f ¡78¢£�¤¥¦

§¨©ª«¬;­®¯°cd±�6

2003-2006 Second Report `abcd

37

Case Summaries+²³´µ

On 20 December 2004, Mr WONG wasadmitted into the AAB Hospital due to cellulitesand pneumonia. He was subsequentlytransferred to the BCC Hospital for treatmentsince 21 December 2004 until time of application.Mr WONG was also diagnosed to be sufferingfrom syphilis. Mr WONG was assessed by Dr Lof BCC Hospital to be suffering from dementia.In the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE)conducted, Mr WONG scored 20 out of 30.According to the senior occupational therapistof BCC Hospital, the scoring of Mr WONGindicated that he was not sui table forindependent living and required supervision andassistance from others on his activities of dailyliving. Dr D, another doctor, assessed Mr WONGto be of poor orientation and presentation ofirrelevant speeches as well as giving inconsistentanswers to questions. Given the extent ofimpairment, Mr WONG’s prognosis wasconsidered to be grave. No psychiatric treatmentwas indicated at this stage.

Mr WONG is presently hospitalized at Ward5A of BCC Hospital. During the enquiry, MrWONG was observed to lie in bed mostly. Hecould move his hands yet his lower limbs wereweak which made him unable to walkindependently. According to the registered nurseof BCC Hospital, Mr WONG’s mobility was poorand he could only walk slowly with walking aidand assistance from others for a short distance.Physiotherapy was rendered to Mr WONG in thehospital. Apart from feeding, Mr WONG has todepend on others for bathing, toileting,transferring etc. He used potty for urination andhad to wear diaper for defecation. Mr WONGsometimes self-muttered and appeared to bedrowsy. He did not exhibit aggressive ordisturbing behavior in ward. During the enquiry,

«¬­­-Eð¬Ë¬ð�*fg6�g¡

¢;£¢¤vyïCø¥=¦ß§*¨¬­­-E

ð¬Ë¬ðC�IJ*fg6m©ªï®ø¥h

i«ù=fg6¬m­®¯,°±*²³ø6´

µ§*fg6mú¶¯,·E¸¹º*R»¼½

L¾¿îÀÀÁÂô?)>*fg6{»·¬ða*Ã

a(õða= ¦Äûï®ø¥YÅ/}«ùƪ

Ç*fg6?a0)Èâ|ÉQOtuv*§¹

ºßâ:?�Ê;y6��ß��?6Ë=+

�*Ìø6´#fg6?ÍÓ;)åLÒÎÏ*

}���ÐÑ�?�Ò|Cæ*âÓ(fg6?

ÔÕÖ×�ØÙ%*Ú>ÛÜfg6e,hij

kÔÕÝ«ù=

fg6>vRï®ø¥?Þßàá=«âãV

W*fg6{LäRå�*¥%æLâ?ç*Ú

äèéÒ;tuBê�ë=Äûï®ø¥?ìò

��n*fg6?ËLLÒÎÏ*⹺8Hí

�y6î;Rßâ:?y6ä*ï¥ðñ��ë

C²¼òó*ø¥¬��:7«ù�fg6=x

yl9�*fg6Rôõ*ãö*�L÷ø¹º

ùúßâ:?û6*âNHüýÚü;þÿ�

ü=fg6,�4B!B";)>¹#*Ràá

38

Mr WONG had weak and confused memory and

could not give accounts of past events and had

difficulties to converse on complex information.

He was noted to have generally settled emotion

and responded to conversation with simple

content.”

Although being a street sleeper, Mr WONG

was found out, after issuing witness summonses

by the Board to various banks, to have been

holding a number of bank accounts with a total

savings of about $600,000 and a safe deposit box.

The Board received Mr WONG into

guardianship and appointed the Director of

Social Welfare as the guardian.

On review a year later, Mr WONG was

already discharged from hospital to a private old

age home where he lived for ten months. He

was found to have adjusted very well. He was

attending regular medical follow-ups and

maintaining a stable health conditions, with fair

walking ability. The Board was pleased to note

the progress of the case and the raising of the

quality of living of the subject. The Board

renewed the Guardianship Order for a further

term of three years.

wâe,)>Ñ$%j;&'�(=«âãV

W*fg6)>»()*§¾��Â?.ª*�

+,;|L¾-.?¼½¿7;XY=¿@�*

fg6?�/0#;L1»O¡Ñ23=4

56fg6m7>�(��¸*Ú².30

4�N8�9Ò7Ñú:ë:�|}?;�§*

7>fg6?;�c?<=h=íð>?@;A

,C²ÄBC=

304¾fg6DE��;3jF478G

GH(��:=

«CE§?�p��*fg6Ìó_ø¥·

Cª9I�·¥uvh=ð²Ë*âÉ2»Î

R=â�hi#VJl«ù;Ä2è@��0

#*�ëLÒK¥=304LM�N·N²Ò?

ORlP;Q*:?6ËüR»%¦J*304

S#TU���õE=

Case Summaries ²³´µ

39

According to intestacy rules, Tom wasentitled to the estate of his late father, which wasestimated to be in the region of about one milliondollars plus a flat. The Official Administratorrefused to take on this case as there wasapparent conflict between the god-sister and thenatural mother of Tom. The Official Solicitorindicated that she would further apply for aCommittee (a receiver) order in respect of Tom’sinheritance. The Official Solicitor was of the viewthat there should be someone to safeguard thewelfare of Tom and thus she suggested theDirector of Social Welfare to apply forguardianship. A guardianship application wasfiled in August 2002.

One of the technicalities at the hearing wasto deal with the statutory definition of “mentalhandicap”. Section 2(1) of the Mental HealthOrdinance provided that “mental handicap”

ÄûtVWVXYZu[*\]¥YZâ^

_«`w?VX*µ¯aCb>@;Cª:}*

ÚVXÊ7cdehi#7N²Ò*�(\]?

_6f_Mgh8WÑ>ij*ku#l)[Æ

mA3jX}in�Ê:opin:q*#7\]

rYZ»�?X}=u#l)[ÆsÓ(\]¹

ºC²¥Ätâ78?:*ª%mAF478G

GH�����*����«¬­­¬Eu˦

Ñ=

N²Ò?ßÂC²vwÐÑ$�«e)½4?

u##x*yÔÕz{|!}ï ~î�ô|�#e)

Case Summaries+²³´µ

2nd case�O+,)%3.*'+3)+$*"'%$3¶)yi+hui+#+y$V/�w%#/'+y'*3#V+"#*/$5#&i+V)*w+($*5'+V$�'/+$*+#+(y#VV+w%).&+")y'+#(+"$(

*#3.%#V+y)3"'%+�#(+#+y'*3#V+&#3$'*3+(")�$*w+*)+5)*5'%*+3)+"$y�++·)%3.*#3'VIi+¶)y¸(+w)/�

($(3'%+�#(+5#%$*w+#*/+�#(+'*3%.(3'/+zI+¶)y¸(+,#3"'%+�$3"+('�'%#V+z#*¹+&#((z))¹(�+++2$(

,#3"'%+º#+!"$*'('+"'%z#V$(3+/)53)%»+&#(('/+#�#I+$*+hggg�++¶"'+|,,$5$#V+4)V$5$3)%i+#(+()V'

¼./$5$#V+3%.(3''+),+3"'+'(3#3'i+(.55'((,.VVI+#&&V$'/+,)%+#+V'33'%+),+#/y$*$(3%#3$)*+,)%+3"'+'(3#3'

),+(.z¼'53¸(+V#3'+,#3"'%�

=�� !=�=½¾¿ÀÁÂ���}x��ÃÄÅÆY��¤ÇÈWÉÊ¥¦MËÌÍ�ÎϤ�Ð�ÑÐ�

ÒÓÔY>ÕÖ×�ØÙÚÛÜÁ«ÁÂ�ÝN�Þßà¤�áâãÁÂäÐ�åæ�ç

èéêëìíîïð�ÇñòóÁÂ�äкÏ��ô©H»��{{{�õö�÷øùØGH

úû÷üîYýb ¡þ¾Àÿ!«

40

½4�e�«�K?C�½L§�,É2�(�?

Ö�4*�¸*e�«�K?C�½L4�e��

������½Ò¾ý)���jk&�M½Ò

¾¿Â?}÷½Ò¾ý)$ � � ��« � � ?

½�4=

\]?q7TU�⫬­­¬EDË?½

Ò¾ýa0(����¦î��½Ò¦�¦����;)>

½Ò¦�¦����ô*3«f²vw�?��*F47

8GGH;�?�åq7��*u#l)[Æ;

&®ÔÕÝø6«���Ó304¦�XÔ?y

6*304 ¡¾¿?&�¢£cR¤Ï*%;

½Ò¾ýe,12F¥5B¦ÍÓ;É2LÒ?

¾T=304¬hi+C.�åq7��,=?

TU*N<d­#\]«F¥;S#§j?*�

�*$e,�(LÒ=}�*304¬hi&®

ÔÕÝø6¨©ø6?øùȪ*©ø6�|2

ON½Ò*k$µ¶¿@?½Ò´µ*!ãèé

;«¬÷¼½*;Q*:?z{)>LÒ÷÷=

304¬}ÈF478G�åq7��Ȫ*­

®¯°±²C²^³?½L´aÂÑ>«zg]

_ñ?Ú¾ýÂ?%ÔÏ´*"µ�aµ«��

;)>Ú¾¿ÂÑ>?|�¶;|�K��*f

ÔÔ·�yN^³?½Lôac(´#Q*:

^³½Ò?H0?%ºj=«¿@?ú��*3

04Ê+\]$C.)½:�*¸«304�u

ʹº»w*;§¼Ñ���=

Case Summaries ²³´µ

means “sub-average general intellectualfunctioning with deficiencies in adaptivebehaviour”. Further, it provided that “sub-average general intellectual functioning” means“an IQ of 70 or below according to the WechslerIntelligence Scales for Children or an equivalentscale in a standardized intelligence test”.

However, Tom’s psychological report inSeptember 2002 showed that full scale IQ was80 6 (Verbal IQ = 76 6 and performance IQ =89 9). The Director of Social Welfare throughher legal representative and her clinicalpsychologist, the Official Solicitor and thepsychiatrist have made tremendous assistanceto the Board at the hearing and the Board waspersuaded to accept that, amongst standarddeviations, IQ tests did not test socialization, self-direction and adaptive functioning, the last ofwhich was the second statutory component fortesting mental handicap. The Board alsoaccepted the v iew of another c l in icalpsychologist’s recent report which confirmedthe definite incapacity of Tom in social andresponsible decision-making. In addition,accepting the medical opinion of the treatingpsychiatrist Dr KWOK, the Board agreed that adoctor did not just look at IQ but took account ofall IQ assessment, profile of education andtraining, his disability in performance etc. TheBoard also accepted the view of the clinicalpsychologist from the Social Welfare Departmentin that full scale IQ has to be interpreted withcaution and the significant discrepancy betweenverbal and performance subtests and an unevenprofile would greatly diminish the importance of

�

�

�

41

«¬­­-EðCË﬽�p�*\]?

78Ìm��R*Ú�(\]?j¾iLk��

¿BÀÚÁÂÃ%æÄÅßâ�Æ=C½\]«

ÇÈËÉ�ÊËÚÁÂmÌÍÎÏ=ÚF478

GGHÐmA|®TU���*304Ñ%d

e*;ºþ²ÒFb�¹ºYUbc*"µ¹º

ÒHx�9*��\]hiÉÓ²:¹º?Ô{

«¬=«¬­­®EðË?ïõ½�p���*

304»�R./CE*¨«ø¥?�åq7�

�;�ÕFbø�Ñ\]Ö×?ØÍ*�âR.

/0Ëw?�(©R;7Ù·dâ|RRÚAB

êj¾Û?§Ü¦=¦,§¦*¦304S#|TU,

�?���=

a full scale IQ as an index of one’s level ofintelligence. On the whole of evidence, the Boardheld that Tom was a mentally handicap withinthe statutory meaning and Guardianship Orderwas accordingly made.

On the second review of the case inNovember 2004 Tom’s welfare was rather settled.However, he went into trouble as he, due to sexurge, always stared at little girls. He was caughtby the police once for touching a little girl in atrain platform. The Board refused the Director ofSocial Welfare’s recommendation to dischargethe case and urged the case social worker tokeep up with his work as necessary, particularlywith Tom’s wealth, he should be given morepersonalised rehabilitative training. On the thirdreview in October 2005, the Board learnt thatintensive counseling were given to Tom duringthe past year respectively by the hospital clinicalpsychologist and hostel social worker. As aresult, Tom behaved well in the past months andgained insight into the consequences should henot control his sex urges properly. The Boarddecided, finally, to discharge the GuardianshipOrder.

Case Summaries+²³´µ

42

The subject had had two properties in mid-levels, one was sold in November 2002 beforethe date (November 2003) on which she wascertified by the doctor to be mentally unfit to makestatement. Part of the sale proceeds, about$200,000, was given to the abuser as a giftaccording to the abuser's own admission.

The main issue was whether the sale of theremaining property was a premeditated schemeof the alleged abuser (“the abuser”) to unlawfullyand dishonestly deprive the subject of theproperty. The subject has signed a generalpower of attorney in favour of the abuser on13 September 2003, just 2 months before thedoctor certified her unfit to make statement. InOctober 2003, the subject was found to beunable to recall the amounts of withdrawals frombank after returning from an outing with theabuser. The subject was not allowed to havefurther outings since then by the medical team.

Case Summaries ²³´µ

3rd case=�+�"#3+#+w$,3+"#V'#*)%+$(+#+ml+I'#%(+)V/+�)y#*+�$3"+/'y'*3$#+#*/+z$&)V#%+#,,'53$�'+/$()%/'%+V$�$*w+$*+#

y'*3#V+")(&$3#V+($*5'+hggj�++¶"'+*)%y#V+w.#%/$#*("$&+#&&V$5#3$)*+�#(+,$V'/+zI+#+y'/$5#V

()5$#V+�)%¹'%+),+3"'+")(&$3#V�++¶"'+(.z¼'53+�#(+(.(&'53'/+3)+z'+,$*#*5$#VVI+#z.('/+zI+"'%

,%$'*/+�")+$(+#+y#V'+�)V.*3''%+),+3"'+(#y'+y'*3#V+")(&$3#V+º�")+$*+,#53+�#(+#+/$(5"#%w'/

&#3$'*3+"$y('V,»�

�� !=�+$%&'()����v}e��*Y��������>+,-./ԫ0�{{p�1ʥ

¦ÒÓ2©ª«3©ª�©4¬5Ï67Y ¡78¢�ÎÏ8967Y:�;©ª�<F

5=>½¾«

ïCª:}

ÝÁ�«ÞßA,àª:}*ßÂCª«¬

­­¬EðCËÌáÑ*N:}áÑ�*¶â«

ø6ú¶Q*:(tÔÕ�(LÒ8�op¬­

­õEðCË8�q=ä�$ã¸n_ñÑáN

:}?<=op?ä¬ð>@q*$Q*:%å:

æÎçy�â?=

שׁ:}

èé²Ò&º?êA$,�Q*:Ñáï¬

ª:}�*Nxboëì$ã¸e$ã¸4q$í

â,îï*.�$íð;ñu;|ò¶?�(*

%æQ*:?xXm$ã=Ò�ó�*Q*:«

¬­­õEDËðõ�m�·Cª[Æ*�ªô

Gyõ9"�$ã¸o§¸C1Óø¥ö÷f

*q*ôGõ9"?�V$ø6ú¶Q*:t�

(LÒ?�à²Ë=«¬­­õEðË*Q*:

m7>øL�ÅM$ã¸Ñ��*,íR;�ù

43

�w¦m<ú;,�?==û§*ø¥|EüQ*

:�½�Ñ=

«¬­­õEðCË®�*c(�����

:?FbÌý�$ã¸,�Q*:Ìmú¶(t�

(LÒ*;ÌUâ|¥%�hiQ*:?<ú*3

04Ó(«ý��¯Å*â¬tQu7¨�N��

?õ9"*Ú$ã¸Ð«�§o¬­­-ECËq

%õ9:èñôG,�?:}þÿQa=

«���*ÔÕÝø6nQ*:¯,ÂØ·

E¸¹º*tLÒô!,�?õ9";«¬­­-

E¬Ëí�ôG"g*k[Æ"<0;$ã¸$«

ÔÕÝø¥?#$wMQ*:\]©á<d*kÑ

á:}?%=ç?äõðí>¬&®b@$¨[Æ

¥�$ã¸=è�*$ã¸Re,�N:}?Õ'

(*�3njk:}l7:?��ä*¾:}ÿ�

NÔ)?Ä�0=kN:}Q�?Õ'(*µ¯�

Q«ÿÑ<=?$*(ú=

���*$ã¸�ZÓÌ#+y^_eâ4?

<ú*�(N,?�$Q*:ç�â?å:=Ú

$*R��ÂQ$ã¸��ú��*Q*:õ½&

+$ã¸?Ç¡*n�re,È-çú�â*�{

$.¾úç��?//=

The applicant - social worker had, as earlyas 5 November 2003, informed the abuserpersonally that the subject was certified unfit andwarned him not to further receive monies fromthe subject. In light of the sequence of events,the Board felt that there was absolutely no reasonat all why the abuser had, as he did, continuedto use the powers of attorney and to proceedwith the signing of the sale agreement in January2004 in respect of the remaining property as anattorney.

The attending psychiatrist gave evidence atthe hearing that the moderate grade dementiafrom which the subject suffered definitely hasvitiated the subject from having the necessarycapacity to execute respectively the said powerof attorney and the assignment (the transfer) ofthe property on 6 February 2004. However, thefact remained that the solicitor’s clerk and theabuser attended the execution of the transferdocuments at the garden of the mental hospital.The balance of sale proceeds of $362,500 wasall paid by the solicitor to the abuser. Moreover,the property was sold to the watchman of thatbuilding at a gross undervalue without referenceto the current market value or retaining a propertyagent. The market value of which shouldprobably be doubled.

At the hearing, the abuser frankly admittedthat he spent all the monies as those were all‘his’ monies which were given to him by thesubject as a gift. However, the subjectinterrupted him three times during and in thecourse of his giving evidence and stayedadamant that the monies were never intended tobe gifts to him, those were meant to be gifts toher younger brother only.

Case Summaries+²³´µ

44

Case Summaries ²³´µ

R��Â*3040Ðâ$í1ȾøH?

<ú?ä¬ðí>C&P@!pc¤Q*:?ù

�*â«24VW�3yè*=3043jF4

78GGH(��:*§mAcÍ��:2·u

4��56Né:}þÿ*;Ó,�:÷*12

l)Q*:#7fé¥7?[Æ*8m9:=3

04¬mAÌÍP_8�*;ºþ$㸾:}

þÿ?%?*Qç?äð->õ&Cb-ðõ@

¥Ñ;c¤Q*:?ù�=

ߧ«¬­­-EuËõðC�*QcÍ�

�:¦Ñ3jX}in�Ê:opi;:q?��

�*Y÷u¥ÄûyÔÕz{|!}ï ��<|?

|?*Ö=O�cÍ��:%��in:?èñ

7ÑÄ�j�>*%ü0X304mA?9:;

åæ¾N�>l�?�ìòì?=

During the course of the hearing, the Boardenquired with him if he would deposit back theunspent money of $261,357 into the subject’saccount. He did so at the recess of the hearing.The Board appointed the Director of SocialWelfare as guardian. The Board recommendedthe public guardian to obtain court’s authorizationto set aside the transaction of the property, andto seek damages against all parties concerned.The Board also recommended the police toinvestigate this matter and the abuser to return afurther sum of $143,143 as balance of the salesproceeds into the subject’s bank account.Subsequently on 31 August 2004, when thepublic guardian filed her application to appointa Committee (a receiver) of subject’s estate, theHigh Court ordered, as an urgent provision undersection 10D of the Mental Health Ordinance, thepublic guardian as interim receiver to issue aprotective writ in order to pursue the claims asrecommended by the Board and for the purposeof land registration.

45

@Úh¨¬­­CEÂA_Fhi��*�

?²Ò¨304aµ«-²Ë*í²Ë;CEw

#V�p=«¿²VW*øùrs;u#��:

S#@Úh¹ºYU·ø¥?B®_hi«ù;

Ô{«¬=�W./*@ÚhC�C1Èhi«

ù?mA=«ïõ½�p����*@Úh?&

®ÔÕÝø6­#�LD#V·ÔÕÝB®_�

®*;�¥%E2Bê?@%«Í���=@Ú

hÍ(ÒSTKFG9*�?˲«�p���

Ì�ÔÍ�=«��Vw*¥H?$*@Úh\

Shirley was under guardianship since mid-2001. Her case was under regular reviews bythe Board, at intervals ranging from 4 months, 6months or 1 year. During the entire period, themedical team and the legal guardian hasdecided to continue treatment and rehabilitationof Shirley at the out-patient clinic of the hospital.Over time, the subject became more and morereceptive to medical advice. Before the thirdreview, her treating psychiatrist was of the viewthat Shirley has been able to attend outpatientclinic regularly and maintain her body weight ata normal range. She has also attempted to try amore balanced diet. Her menstruation wasresumed shortly before the review hearing took

Case Summaries+²³´µ

4th case=�=¶"'%'+$(+*)3"$*w+�%)*w+�$3"+yI+z)/I+�'$w"34"$%V'Ii+#*+$*3'VV$w'*3+I).*w+V#/I+&.%(.$*w+.*$�'%($3I+'/.5#3$)*i+$(+(.,,'%$*w+,%)y+#*)%'?$#

*'%�)(#�++O3+3"#3+3$y'i+4"$%V'I+"#/+#+('V,�$*/.5'/+�'$w"3+V)((+,%)y+jk+¹w+3)+rn+¹wi+3"'+%'(.V3#*3

z)/I+y#((+$*/'?+�#(+hn�q�++2'%+5)*/$3$)*+¹'&3+/'3'%$)%#3$*w+('5)*/#%I+3)+�'$w"3+V)((+()

y.5"+()+3"#3+("'+�#(+$*5%'#($*wVI+V'3"#%w$5+#*/+y#V#$('+�$3"+,%'�.'*3+,#$*3$*w+#33#5¹(i

w'*'%#V$@'/+y.(5V'+#*/+z)*'+#5"'(�++4"'+"#/+/$,,$5.V3$'(+3)+(3#*/+.&+,%)y+#+(�.#33$*wi+5)V/

$*3)V'%#*5'+#*/+#y'*)%%")'#�++4"'+(3%)*wVI+/'*$'/+"'%+y'*3#V+$VV*'((+#*/+%',.('/+y'/$5#V

$*3'%�'*3$)*+z)3"+)�'%('#(+#*/+$*+2)*w+A)*w�

�����=�=B�CDEFGTMN���$H�I��JK��6£�ðCDLp}MN0OPQRS�}aM

N�ýCTUVWÏ}aXt«TMN�CDYZQR[�ýC.\�Þ]^�_`CDa

DÚÃ�bbcãdefgýP�hij>kj�lmânÖnodp>cãgýñqr«

TMNsS�tQ[uúvw1fE÷xüyz>�{|�«ð}~0�I×���ÒÓÔ

>���üæ����������«

46

Case Summaries ²³´µ

place. During the guardianship period, she wasalso able to complete her degree course and nowstarted well with her career and enjoyed greatjob satisfaction. Her physical conditionsimproved a lot and she gained insight into heroverall conditions and mental illness. Her familyalso provided continual and satisfactory care toShirley. Both Shirley and the treating doctor haveconfidence that her health conditions would bewell monitored without a guardianship order.Therefore, in 2003, the Board decided not torenew the Order.

]y�?Ô��.I�*§JRbc�»·ÎÔ

?KLo=@Úh?è@>�̲ö÷yÎP*

§L,ÈM�NOBê?ÔÕz{;è@�?¿

@>�*�:¬�24YUHq��P�=@Ú

h;&®ø6øÓ(�?z{��Ì`»ö÷*

;, q�§Re,���äQ6¥%m»OR

?lP*ª%*304S#|�TU���=

47

5th case=�=2)�+w.#%/$#*("$&+)%/'%+"'V&+$*+$y&%)�$*wz./w'3$*w+(¹$VV(�

!#3"Ii+#+I).*w+�)y#*+(.,,'%$*w+,%)y+w%#*/$)('+/'V.($)*(+),+())*+y#%%I$*w+#+%$5"+#*/

V.5%#3$�'+/)53)%+#*/+w'33$*w+z$VV$)*(+),+/)VV#%(�++4"'+(3#%3'/+#*+)�'%�(&'*/$*w+"#z$3+)�'%

3"'('+hk+I'#%(�++#�'*+�$3"+#+%'w.V#%+'y&V)Iy'*3+#*/+y)*3"VI+(#V#%$'(i+("'+(&'*3+$*+#*

.*5)*3%)VV'/+y#**'%+#*/+'*/'/+.&+$*+)�$*w+5%'/$3+5#%/+5)y&#*$'(+#*/+)z3#$*$*w+&'%()*#V

V)#*(+,)%+)�'%+�hqkikkk�

�� !=�+78¢`���Q½���Ã�����ÒÓ����ð��0���������©���>��W��� 

¾«�}�É�ð¡¢�£¤¥¦�§¨«©ª����b«ø5¬>f­�®ð¯°±²

Ú}t³��å´µ¶·>XY¸¶«

Case Summaries+²³´µ

Her treating psychiatrist wished to have aguardian appointed to monitor her rehabilitationand budgeting skills including managing herspending habits. A guardianship application wasfiled and the Director of Social Welfare wasappointed as the legal guardian.

With the encouragement of the legalguardian, Cathy participated well in the training,particularly in budgeting exercises of spendingand saving of money under the assistance of hertreating psychiatrist, and the social workers inthe half-way-hostel. During the period ofguardianship, she managed to save some moneyto partially repay the banks. Her insight into

RS?&®ÔÕÝø6TÛ��:LD�Ú

�?Ô{lP;ö÷�?UVÙs*«$¦Ñ�

���*3043jyF478GGH(u#�

�:=

R��:?WX5&®ÔÕÝø6?�Í;

ÂÞ�ÕFb?y6ä*RSÛMy,�ãkN

H<ú?«¬=R��Vw*�_FY]bZÙ

s*§J[\_ñ]?�;�=�|Ú3Bê?

à�^_`#a?Ùs,£�¤?Ó�^NO*

§L·'#a;ÉQ�NH<ú=

48

Case Summaries ²³´µ

money and mental illness has significantlyimproved and that she spent less and spentrealistically.

The delegated guardian was of the view thatwith continuing and close supervision of thehostel staff and the case social worker, thesubject’s interests and welfare needs could bemet even without a guardianship order. TheBoard therefore decided not to renew theguardianship order.

©õ��:Ó(dRSLYU»·�ÕFb

;²ÒFb?Ö×�b*Re,���?��

ä*�?8c;78Q6¥%»·Ät=ª%*

304S#t®TU���=

���������� �������������� ���� ���� ���� � !�"�! #$��%$� �� � �&�' (� )� *+�,+- �+.�� ��'/���� ���� ����

01 *$/ 2 3�4�5 �678 9888 :; < = 2 3�4�5 ��68 �9�90> ?, �/ 2 �@�""�!$A�$�B�� ��%C!�, DEF$@+��$ 2 '''C )./��. %)� �+-�GC�%�C-&

H�I�JKI��LK�M�I�JNOPQR

������ �����

����

����

��

����������� �����

!����

��"��"������